reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We begin tonight with the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you. These are crime scenes. The residential schools was a genocide of our people. 215 children were found in unmarked graves. The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites. We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling. Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children. There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building. There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools.

Dr. Elizabeth Weisz, an anthropologist, discusses the challenges she has faced in academia due to the rise of woke ideology. She emphasizes the importance of basing scientific research on facts and evidence, particularly in her field of studying skeletal remains. Dr. Weisz highlights the hypocrisy of universities that claim to support free speech while silencing dissenting voices. She calls for a return to common sense and a focus on data-driven research. Dr. Weisz's book, "Repatriation and Erasing the Past," explores the controversy surrounding the reburial of skeletal remains and can be purchased on Amazon.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central event and its factual claims (Kamloops discovery, 215 unmarked graves). - Catalogue the competing viewpoints and claims (genocide vs not, murder vs not, truth-telling vs denial). - Note government actions and policy references (funding amounts, Bill C-15, UNDRIP, land rights concerns). - Highlight conflicts over money and governance (revenue, where money goes, band involvement). - Preserve direct quotes for key, pivotal statements to maintain precision. - Exclude evaluative judgments; avoid adding or interpreting beyond stated claims. - Emphasize unique or surprising elements (denialism, political gains, protracted reconciliation). - Keep within 374–468 words; translate if needed (not needed here). Summary: The transcript centers on a broadcast about the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. It begins with the claim: "215 children were found in unmarked graves." Speakers frame the site in stark terms: "They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you," and "These are crime scenes." Another speaker declares: "The residential schools was a genocide of our people." Amid the testimony, debate erupts over truth, privilege, and interpretation: "Because of your white privilege, you can't take our truth." Financial and policy implications surface as the federal government is described as ready to dispense funding: "The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites." A commitment to evidentiary process is expressed: "We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling." Yet a counter-narrative questions the framing of the events: "Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children." Another speaker distinguishes: "There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building." Questions about documentation and causation follow: "There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools. ... There wasn't murder. There wasn't genocide. Why do you think they are holding to this mass grave story?" The dialogue suggests perceived political gains from the narrative: "There have been all kinds of political gains as a result of this story." The discussion advances to legislative and sovereignty issues: "This week, the senate passed bill c 15 aimed at aligning Canadian law with the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people." The claim about sovereignty is asserted: "That law was a surrender of the province. They have a right to the land. They own it. All of it. So is that what we're saying?" There is worry about land rights and the so-called "Drucker legislation," along with concern about property rights: "You're not getting the truth," and "They're worried about property rights and how it could possibly affect them with the Drucker legislation." A charged atmosphere is conveyed: "The reaction from those with various kinds of interests will be fierce. This incoherent and consistently racist posturing in this house against indigenous and first nations." The phrase "Denialism is hate" appears, followed by questions about reconciliation: "Is there an end? Are we ever done reconciling? Why haven't you dug in the ground yet with the millions of dollars you see?" The dialogue closes with concerns about funding and accountability: "All these millions that are that revenue are going through my band. It's not empowering aboriginal people at all. Because we have no idea where all this money is going." The concluding note affirms a long-term process: "The journey of reconciliation is a long one, but it is a journey we are on."

The speaker discusses the government's spending of $8 million on searching for unmarked graves at a school in Kamloops, BC, with no results. They criticize the wasteful spending and highlight the financial struggles of Canadians. The speaker expresses frustration at consistently being proven right about issues years before they are acknowledged, leading to backlash and cancelation. They predict being vindicated in the future.

They have said again and again that unmarked mass graves have been found at Canada's residential schools, which were boarding schools for Indian children that existed for about a hundred years peaking in the early twentieth century. Last year, archaeologists detected what they said could be 200 unmarked graves at this former school in Kamloops, British Columbia. Weeks later, a further 751 unmarked graves were detected across from the former Marivelle Residential School on the Cowices Reserve in Saskatchewan. More than three years later, not a single body has been found in any unmarked grave at any residential school anywhere in Canada. Turns out that, in fact, the alleged unmarked gravesite in Kamloops was in reality a 2,000 foot long, three foot deep trench that was established in 1924 as a septic field to store sewage from the school.

Speaker 0: It was January 2022 when a colleague of mine in the unit came to me saying, something's up. We've had a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year. And that's what got my curiosity piqued. Speaker 1: Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2: I have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 3: Doctors made extra money to push vaccines and they were given a billing code to do it. I have pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 2: They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved. They've distributed it to the province so the second it's approved, we can start jabbing ourselves with it. We can start jabbing pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4: Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, And then you don't. Speaker 0: I was suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials. Possible. They pushed on with this narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2: They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1: Our Canadian babies died, and the police are trying to cover it up to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it. Speaker 2: The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression. Speaker 4: If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk. Speaker 2: It started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public. Speaker 5: Canada has to shift their understanding of what the CBC is. It is a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 2: This is the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective, and they're still not investigating. Everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, our health agencies, how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

The premier's decision to share a stage with an individual who lacks credibility is concerning. It reflects poorly on Alberta's reputation globally and shows a lack of judgment on her part.

I will apologize to Canadians, Jewish people, and Ukrainians for inviting a controversial speaker. The person responsible has resigned. We regret clapping for him, as it dishonored Holocaust victims and hurt many groups. With fewer survivors, we must remember the Holocaust. Canada is sorry for the situation it caused for President Zelensky and Ukraine. It's concerning that Russia is using this mistake for false propaganda.

Curtis from AOS Positioning Systems calls Sarah to tell her they will be removing her from their website. Curtis says customers are questioning the product because it was listed at “600 bodies” and later at “two fifteen,” which customers view as anomalies. Curtis explains the removal is intended to protect Sarah while the results are validated in “just a couple more years,” after which they will put her back on the website. Sarah reacts, asking what Curtis means and disputing the implication that it is their fault. Curtis says they stand by their systems and that they work, and he clarifies that the system did not come with the “white guys” who were present during Sarah’s last use of it. Curtis explains the people Sarah refers to were archaeologists at an archaeological site, and they do not come and operate the machine for Sarah; Sarah has to operate it herself. Sarah identifies herself as an archaeologist and calls herself a conflict anthropologist. She says she remembers the word “conflict” from CBC articles and assumed it related to archaeology because the work was described as an archaeological dig. Sarah acknowledges the article lent credibility to her work and she did not double-check. Curtis asks what conflict anthropology is, and Sarah responds with an explanation that it is “the study of hating white people.” Curtis then says he would like to read Sarah’s thesis about how much she hates white people, and Sarah agrees that she will read it.

Ansel from the community asks Frances Widdowson about a press release regarding unmarked graves at Kamloops Indian Residential School. Council members dismiss her question due to her controversial past and refuse to engage in discussion. Widdowson persists, questioning if spreading misinformation is acceptable. The council avoids answering and moves to adjourn the meeting.

We discussed a sonar scan of land next to a church on an Indian reservation, where something “must be bones” was found and described as a mass murder with bodies dumped there, suggesting it spread across the country. Then we hear about the prime minister apologizing for the mass murder of a Canadian Indian people and ongoing coverage about churches being burned, including Catholic and other churches, with reporters repeatedly presenting new details. There’s talk of the residential schools and how terrible they were, and the narrative is said to go overboard with fabrications that have no evidence whatsoever, claiming not one bone has ever been found and labeling the whole story a hoax. It’s argued that this is acceptable because it criticizes “the evil white settlers” and similar notions, implying a political climate that allows certain criticisms at great length. The discussion moves to the idea that reports can be extended and sensationalized, highlighting the existence of double standards. For example, it’s claimed that the New York Times had a significant piece asserting that photography is racist, with examples like walking dogs being described as a white man’s activity. There’s also mention of Vancouver being characterized as the “anti Asian hate crime capital of the world,” based on statistics described as dubious. The speaker suggests that you can invent such things. In contrast, the speaker argues that when someone blows up an airplane and engages in separatist activity and threatens the leader of India—described as a rather important foreign partner—there is a reluctance to say anything. This is presented as evidence of hypocrisy and double standards that exist in discourse. The overall point is that there are selective criticisms and narratives shaped by political considerations, allowing some topics to be explored at length while others are suppressed or avoided. Key claims repeated include: the sonar finding of bones and a mass murder on land near an Indian reservation; widespread reporting of mass murder and church burnings tied to residential schools; the assertion that not one bone has been found and that the whole story is a hoax; accusations of fabrications with no evidence; the New York Times’ stance on photography as racist; the claim that walking dogs is a white man’s activity; Vancouver as the anti-Asian hate crime capital of the world based on dubious statistics; and the assertion of hypocrisy and double standards when comparing domestic issues to actions by actors related to India.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1's travel expenses are being paid and by whom. Speaker 1 says it depends on the expenses and doesn't see why they have to justify their travel to Quinell, but confirms they were invited. Speaker 0 asks who invited them and if they are selling books, inquiring about their motivation for going. Speaker 1 states they receive no money for the books. Speaker 0 suggests it's a lot of trouble to claim 215 children died to get $7,000,000, implying there are easier ways to obtain that amount.

In 1964, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip visited a Catholic residential school in Canada, where 10 children disappeared after a picnic with the royal couple. William Coombs, a witness, was set to testify about the abductions but died mysteriously. Reverend Kevin Annette believes Coombs was murdered to silence him. Annette was fired from the church for exposing crimes at the school and now works with survivors.

The speaker discusses Canada becoming interesting in January and February due to protesters in Ottawa. The job of reporters, according to the speaker, is to go out and ask protesters why they are on the streets, why they are there with their kids, and why there is a bouncy castle in the middle of Ottawa, to discover the story. The speaker claims the Government did not want that and that the Prime Minister decided in advance that the protesters were all the modern excommunications—Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, probably homophobes, misogynists, probably transphobes, etc.—and then he brings in the Emergency Powers Act. The speaker asks what the mainstream media would do at such a time, and asserts they would question it, but claims the Canadian mainstream media did not and instead acted as an Amen Chorus of the government. Several examples are provided. A CBC host described the Freedom Convoy as a feral mob. A Toronto Star columnist said, “sorry for the language, it's a homegrown hate farm that was then jet fueled by an American right funded rat fucking operation.” The speaker notes that CBC claimed two indigenous women who were scared to go outside in Ottawa because of racist violence did not bother to mention that indigenous drummers had led the truckers in an 0 Canada rendition. The National Observer allegedly stated that many black and indigenous freedom convoy supporters were, in fact, duped by the truckers. A Globe and Mail reporter claimed, “My 13 year old son told me to tell protesters I'm not a Jew” out of fear of antisemitic violence, without mentioning that one of the convoy leaders was Jewish. The speaker argues this demonstrably rancid and corrupt behavior is rooted in a system where in Canada, the media is funded by the government. It is stated that in 2018, election year, there was a coincidence with the government funding; the Canadian media allegedly received $595,000,000 over five years, and the Toronto Star estimated it was going to be getting $3,000,000 from the Government in the first half of the year. The government is described as able to tell banks to shut down people’s bank accounts, and able to tell the media what to do, with the media then doing the bidding of the government camp. The speaker concludes that this is not a free society’s media.

Nadia Murad, a former ISIS sex slave and author, won prestigious awards for her book on her captivity. Despite accolades, she's banned from book signings in Canada due to fears of promoting Islamophobia. This double standard allows protests against Jews but silences her story.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

The prime minister has not firmly supported the bill, citing a difficult balance regarding limits on speech. Despite inquiries, no clear stance has been provided by key ministers, raising concerns about the lack of decision from the Liberals since the bill's introduction a month ago. It's emphasized that inciting hate, such as residential school denialism, is not free speech and poses a threat to survivors who deserve protection from violence. For true reconciliation, the prime minister and relevant ministers must prioritize the safety of survivors and their communities. Urging them to read and support the bill quickly is essential for progress.

The speaker has spent two years trying to get Johns Hopkins to state that Paul McHugh doesn't represent the hospital's positions. This is to combat misinformation from McHugh, who isn't a gender or sexuality specialist, but whose medical title lends him credibility. The goal is to have these statements ready for courts and legislatures if he testifies, and to educate the media about why he's not a credible source on trans identities. They are actively tracking individuals like McHugh and engaging with their institutions.

In the video, Dr. Regina Wateel discusses her book "Fisman's Fraud" and the academic misinformation surrounding COVID-19 policies in Canada. She highlights how the government and media used a fraudulent study to justify strict restrictions and vaccine mandates. Dr. Wateel discovered that the study was based on a mathematical model rather than actual population data. She faced resistance from the journal, the University of Toronto, and the Canadian government when she tried to expose the fraud. Dr. Wateel also reveals conflicts of interest, such as the lead author's ties to Moderna. The consequences of these policies were devastating for many Canadians, including restrictions on unvaccinated individuals and the loss of jobs and opportunities. Dr. Wateel emphasizes the need for individuals and grassroots movements to take action against such manipulation.

The minister accused of painting Canadians as Nazis refuses to apologize for a vetted Nazi. The descendant of Holocaust survivors criticizes the distortion of history. The government house leader deflects blame, stating the speaker invited the individual and took responsibility. The speaker resigned, which was deemed honorable and necessary.